Tag Archives: Politics

Why is GM really on the verge of bankruptcy?

Posted on by
Reply

Because they spent so much money making this:

Add an Image

It looks like something out of a James Bond film.

But the presidential seal on the side marks this hulking limo out as something not even the superspy will be able to get his hands on.

These are the first pictures of the new armoured limousine which will be used to ferry Barack Obama around.

Nicknamed “The Beast”, the Cadillac will make its debut on 20 January, as part of the inaugural parade.

“Although many of the vehicle’s security enhancements cannot be discussed, it is safe to say that this car’s security and coded communications systems make it the most technologically advanced protection vehicle in the world.”

Naturally, Obama has expressed his appreciation for this anti-green armoured pimp-mobile by firing Rick Wagoner. The rumour is Wagoner knew too much about the “security enhancements”, so they gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Dawkins, Dimness, Aids and the Pope

Posted on by
2

Richard Dawkins offers his opinion on an evolutionary dead-end: the condom.

Professor Dawkins, the prominent biologist and atheist, said that Benedict XVI would have blood on his hands if his beliefs were followed by Catholics around the continent.

Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: “I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.

That must make Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies dim, too. It couldn’t be Dawkins that is dim, could it?

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.'”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

If Richard Dawkins had the courage of his convictions, he would be advocating as much reproduction as possible between HIV infected people in order for natural selection to develop an Aids resistant strain of humanity. This, after all, is his religion’s view of progress.

Stephen Sizer, the Evangelical left and Israel

Posted on by
Reply

Some reverend gentlemen find politics irresistible:

“Why have Britain and America become the focus of so much hatred from the Islamic world?” Sizer further asked. “Why are our countries the target for Islamist terrorism – despite our commitment to the rule of international law, democracy and human rights?” For Sizer the reasons are clear: “The answers to these questions remain inexplicable unless we factor in what is now probably the most influential and destructive movement amongst Christians today – Christian Zionism.”

There are a number of problems with Stephan Sizer’s position on what he calls Christian Zionism:

This first is in the article above: he wilfully resists common sense explanations. Thus, he sees the cause of the hatred directed against the West by Islamists as explainable only by a conspiracy of Christian Zionism; for some reason he cannot see the obvious – and true, in my opinion – reason that Islamists hates a free society simply because it is not Islamist. Such a concept should be easy to grasp for an evangelical Christian, since it is a straightforward application of Jeremiah 17:9.

The second is less obvious: it is the couching of left wing political tendentiousness in biblical language in order to give it the weight of theological authority. Simply put, Sizer is saying God is on the side of his politics:

That is why I believe passionately that we must find peaceful, democratic, non-violent, constructive ways to express their anger and frustration at the appalling suffering in Gaza during the recent attacks and the ongoing military occupation of Palestine which denies millions of people their basic human rights. We must not to seek revenge or retaliation as this will only play into the hands of extremists on both sides. Violence breeds violence. Jesus said “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

The above sounds very fine, particularly the last sentence. But the facts are questionable and the implication is that the violence so far has been entirely on the part of Israel, giving Hamas an opportunity to take the high moral ground by not retaliating; once they come out from their hiding places behind babies and civilians.

The alliance between the West and Israel is a political one between democracies that share similar values; it isn’t based on biblical prophesy as Sizer would have us believe:

“Christian Zionism is [essentially] a political movement within Protestant evangelical Christianity that views the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, [mandated by God] thus deserving our unconditional economic, moral, political, and theological support.”

While there is nothing wrong with Christians having political opinions, a minister whose political message overshadows – and is disseminated under the pretence of being inspired by – the gospel damages the gospel, the credibility of the minister and renders the numinous commonplace.

Go away Galloway

Posted on by
1

The Post has a good perspective on Canada’s refusal to allow George Galloway entry:

It’s a mystery to me why anyone cares what George Galloway thinks, no matter what the issue. From what I understand, he’s a self-promoting British MP of no particular stature, who specializes in making inane remarks, the better to draw attention to himself. We have plenty of those in Canada, why import more from Britain?

I derive considerable satisfaction from observing Galloway’s frustration at the idea that he is unable to unleash one of his bombastic jeremiads within Canada. Nevertheless, even though the ostensible reason for his exclusion is his financial support of terrorist organisations, in the interest of free speech it might have been better to let him in and froth at the mouth for a while.

After all, the only person who would have listened is Jack Layton.

Peace in our time

Posted on by
Reply

From here

Iran responds to Barack Obama’s video appeal with nuclear pledge

US President Barack Obama’s appeal for a ‘new beginning’ with Iran has been met by a pledge to turn on the country’s nuclear power plant this year.

Mr Obama sent Iran an unprecedented videotaped message offering a fresh start in diplomatic engagement after decades of US hostility to the Islamic Republic.

In an unusually swift reaction to Mr Obama’s overture, Aliakbar Javanfekr, an aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran welcomed “the interest of the American government to settle differences”.

But he said that the US government “should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them”.

Obama’s grovelling overture to Iran reminds of something; now what was it? Oh, yes, this:

Except Neville Chamberlain was less naive.

Not invented here

Posted on by
Reply

In his address to congress Obama declared:

the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. He said millions of jobs and scores of communities depend on saving the industry.

Does this mean he is going to be sending money to Germany to bolster its automotive industry?

Karl Friedrich Benz (1844-1929), Germany Patent DRP No. 37435: GASOLINE / First true automobile. Gasoline automobile powered by an internal combustion engine: three wheeled, Four cycle, engine and chassis form a single unit.

Did the rest of Obama’s speech make any more sense? Not really:

But I’m worried that it’s not just a matter of what he chooses to put in speeches, but what he knows. It looks very much as if the president is oblivious to everything we’ve learned about social programs and educational reforms in the last 40 years—and by “we” I include policy analysts on the left as well as right. The guy never indicates that he is aware that we’ve tried a whole bunch of the same stuff he wants to try and evaluated it repeatedly and—read my lips—it doesn’t work.

Gaza: The Anglican Church of Canada takes sides – against Israel as usual.

Posted on by
1

The ACoC is urging its members to write a letter:

In pressing for a lasting ceasefire, international leaders including Canada must recognize the recent violence as a symptom of decades-long failure of the international community, State of Israel, and leaders of the Palestinian community in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem to make difficult but necessary commitments to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Canada must publicly recognize that no lasting peace is possible without justice, and without the adherence of all parties to the rule of law, especially those on which the international community has agreed, including the Geneva Conventions and the protection of non-combatants in militarily occupied territories. Ending the siege of Gaza and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are two critical steps toward achieving justice and toward adherence to the rule of law.

The first paragraph is the decoy to create an illusion of impartiality.

In the second paragraph we get down to business. The ‘injustices’ singled out for special mention are: Israel’s siege of Gaza, civilian loss of life – presumably civilians in Gaza killed by Israelis –  and the occupation of the West bank. No mention of the thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians from Gaza; no mention of the use of humans shields by Hamas;  no mention of Hamas murdering its own people; no mention of the fact that Israel attempts to protect non-combatants, while Hamas deliberately targets them.

In short, another biased, pompously self-righteous, anti-Israel  philippic from Fred Hiltz, the leftist interloper who has hijacked the Anglican church of Canada.

Yes Minister

Posted on by
Reply

The secret diary of the Minister for Folding Deckchairs

Our private secretaries were waiting for us. Mine is a pleasant young woman called Jessica. I am also entitled to a car and a driver. Entirely pointless since the No159 and No3 buses run past my door.

Jessica explained the situation is complicated. Red boxes – lead-lined so that if the Minister is blown up, the Government’s papers will survive – cannot be carried on public transport. Second, there will be times when a vote is called without warning and we will need to get to the House quickly. Third, I might be glad of a lift home at 3am after an adjournment debate.

She also explained that the funding of the Government car pool is geared to encourage maximum use of the car. The drivers are on a low basic wage and dependent on overtime. Jessica said I will need a mobile phone, a pager and a fax at home. I offered mild resistance, but fear I shall have to give way. The first of what will no doubt be many little defeats at official hands.

While we were talking, in strolled JP. He made a little show of being pleased to see me.

‘Thank you for having me,’ I said. ‘Glad you decided to join us,’ he said drily. The sarcasm remained in the air long after he departed. Of course, he must know that I turned down the wretched job.

Outside, I ran into Labour MP Frank Field. He confirmed that the Government car service was a job creation scheme.

Life imitates art:

Pope vs Pelosi

Posted on by
Reply

From here:
It would appear from the two statements issued by the Vatican and the speaker’s office that Nancy Pelosi and Pope Benedict did not share the same views during her audience with the pontiff.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican Wednesday morning, but may not have had a meeting of the minds if the two statements from their offices are any indication.

No journalists were at the 15-minute encounter and the Vatican and the speaker’s offices have not released any photos. However, according to their statements it appears the pope and the politician attended two different get-togethers.

“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development,” the Vatican wrote, having released the statement moments before the two met.

Several hours later, Pelosi’s office gave her take on the tete-a-tete.

“It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today,” Pelosi said in a statement released hours after the meeting. “In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.”

Nancy Pelosi, pro-abortion Catholic, evidently isn’t interested in the Pope’s views on protecting innocent life and, true to liberal form, is the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear, preferring to talk about less personally demanding topics such as world hunger and global warming. I wonder if she rode a bike to visit the Pope or flew in an aeroplane at taxpayer expense.

The Pope’s reference to “requirements of the natural moral law” as a defence for protecting unborn babies is interesting since it extends the principle of protecting the unborn – quite rightly – beyond Roman Catholicism to all who still believe in right and wrong: almost everyone on the planet with the possible exception of Anglicans.